Is this really what my negatives look like?

[Berkeley Mike]

If you are using a lightbox then it is a projected image, which has a greater range than a reflected image. Such a range may not even be seen in a print viewed in good light. So the comparison is not useful.

 

[sterioma]

If you are using a lightbox then it is a projected image, which has a greater range than a reflected image. Such a range may not even be seen in a print viewed in good light. So the comparison is not useful.

It seems to me that it should not matter if the light box has got a great range: if the two tones (the black from the paper border and black corresponding to the film rebate) are really the same, they should look the identical irrespective of lighting conditions.

Maybe what I seem to understand from this thread is that we accept a divergence or difference in tonal values between these two blacks as long as it cannot be appreciated under normal lighting conditions (e.g. reflected light with a good room illumination).

 

[sterioma]

I am with Sirius Glass on this: i make contact prints to actually see what is on the negative, not to evaluate my max black. Maximum back comes when doing a proper print en even then i think high lights and overal tonal range are more important.

That's fair enough.

As I pay the darkroom by the hour, I have cheaper (if maybe not quicker) ways to see what it's in my negative, i.e.. scanning them with a cheap flatbed scanner or even using my phone to capture an inverted negative on the light box.

This was for me more an experiment in understanding whether my exposure/development workflow can be perfected, and not rely on the great exposure latitude of the film and/or print manipulations to get to a decent print. I know that there are other ways to test for personal film speed and development times, but this seemed a good place to start.

 

[MattKing]

This is a scan of a portion of a contact proof sheet that is fairly close to what I like to see when I am doing this.
It is of 6x7 negatives because, after re-sizing, the results are easier to see in the scan than if I used a 35mm example.
There is a slight difference between the rebate density and the density where there is no film. I find that if I cannot see any difference between the rebate and where there is no film, than I have made the contact proof sheet too dark to either see the photos properly, or evaluate the negatives properly.
The contrast (filtered for grade 2) is on the slightly high side of normal, but for the subjects involved, I am happy with that.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

It seems to me

That assumption is your problem.

 

[sterioma]

That assumption is your problem.

I explained my reasoning, which part of it you think is not correct?
Under what circumstances would two parts of the same print with same tone look different under transmitted light?

Just saying that my assumption is not correct without disproving it does not add a lot to the conversation.

I am comparing apples to apples here. If both tones are Dmax, they should look the same, under whatever light.
The reverse of course is not true: two similar tones may look the same under sufficiently dim lighting conditions.

 

[removed account4]

wow .. i guess one never knows what kind of a slacker they are
until they read how hard core people are about proofing their rolls of film..
i always figured it was to get a glimpse, not a gallery show piece ..

 

[eddie]

wow .. i guess one never knows what kind of a slacker they are
until they read how hard core people are about proofing their rolls of film..
i always figured it was to get a glimpse, not a gallery show piece ..

It's not necessarily about being "hard core", John. Proper proofing will alert you to problems/changes in your development routine, and can also warn you about problems with equipment (shutter speed drifts, etc.). It is relatively quick to determine, and saves time in the long run.

 

[sterioma]

i always figured it was to get a glimpse, not a gallery show piece ..

As I mentioned above, I have other ways to get a glimpse. If that is what you (and most people) do with your proofs, that's fine with me.

I am not framing my proofs. This thread is under the Exposure forum, because this was for me an experiment about learning something about my negatives (exposure and development).

 

[sterioma]

Thank you MattKing, very helpful to know that your process is like.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

I explained my reasoning, which part of it you think is not correct?
Under what circumstances would two parts of the same print with same tone look different under transmitted light?

Just saying that my assumption is not correct without disproving it does not add a lot to the conversation.

I am comparing apples to apples here. If both tones are Dmax, they should look the same, under whatever light.
The reverse of course is not true: two similar tones may look the same under sufficiently dim lighting conditions.

You have made an errant fundamental assumption. That, fed into any reasoning process, will lead to errant conclusions. As such, the reasoning is not the problem; it is the primary assumption of the utility of the method that is the problem.

Prints are made to be viewed in reflected light, not with light transmitted through them. Many have explained this as mistaken. As such, you are seeing things that no one will see and are not relevant to the viewing.

The viewing of prints is limited by the brains ability to process certain kinds of visual discriminations; resolution, luminosity. and its range. What you are revealing by viewing prints with transmitted light is beyond what the seeing process can manage when viewing in reflected light. So it doesn't matter how many prints you look at with transmitted light, the errant process is being repeated and the analysis is still irrelevant. I imagine that if you looked at the prints under X-ray you would see some interesting stuff but that would be irrelevant, too.

The other challenge is that you seem wed to this process of evaluation and do not want to let it go. And so you are stuck until you can allow yourself to move on. Shut the light table off and view the print in good light and go from there.

 

[pentaxuser]

sterioma, you may want to look at David Allen's procedure for film testing and development and following on from that, contact sheets. Do a search. It has been a while since I last looked at it but I think his procedure is aimed at giving an insight into what can be learned from a correctly exposed contact sheet

As I said before my test for min time for max black from an unexposed but fully processed piece of film did seem to give me good contact sheets but my judgement of max black and min time was against the kind of reflected room light that my prints would be seen.

pentaxuser

 

[sterioma]

This does not seem to be a fair representation of my arguments, but thank for taking the time to articulate your point. It's much more helpful that just saying that "I have a problem".

After a few responses to this thread I have summarized above my understanding that "we accept a divergence or difference in tonal values between these two blacks as long as it cannot be appreciated under normal lighting conditions (e.g. reflected light with a good room illumination)."

I am not wed to any process, I am not trying to sell my methods. I am just a beginner trying to understand how far we should go to critically evaluate when two tones are the same.

I stand by my statement that if the rebate are was really to reach Dmax, the fact that I was evaluating via a lightbox was not a mistake. I had already conceded that I was probably taking the statement too literally.

 

[removed account4]

As I mentioned above, I have other ways to get a glimpse. If that is what you (and most people) do with your proofs, that's fine with me.

I am not framing my proofs. This thread is under the Exposure forum, because this was for me an experiment about learning something about my negatives (exposure and development).

stefano

if you hold your flm in its sleeve up to a window and make a cellphonesnapshot of it
it would be easy to tell you what your exposure problem is / might be. my guess is
your film is thin, about 2 stops thin. so there are 2 exposure issues here ... your film has not have had enough exposure
( and it wasn't developed enough ) and your contact sheet was exposed to too much light so it is extremely dark.
my suggestion of bracketing your exposure earlier in this thread would help you with your film/camera exposure
and help you make a contact sheet that is more useful...

good luck!
john

 

[sterioma]

Thanks John, it's probably time to do some proper film testing!

 

[Carriage]

I stand by my statement that if the rebate are was really to reach Dmax, the fact that I was evaluating via a lightbox was not a mistake

This is true, however the reason for doing it means that reaching actual Dmax isn't really desired. What you're doing is working out standard printing parameters which will always show you the shadow detail when you look at your contact/proof prints but give you plenty of headroom for the highlights. The standard parameters/consistency is kind of the more important bit as it allows you to compare exposure and developing between different rolls.

 

[removed account4]

Thanks John, it's probably time to do some proper film testing!

its the simple ezpz film test
that helps you fine tune the negative
to whichever way you are going to get prints out of the film ..
some folks go all science lab with isometrics and densitometric
and all sorts of high tech multi layered pyramid schemed testing methods
that almost require a reading of diaannetics and the use of an Eemeter
the one i suggeted is pretty much effortless ( and there are on questions afterwards )

have fun !

 

[pentaxuser]

its the simple ezpz film test

have fun !

I wondered what the ezedpzed test was until I realised that in U.S. English the last letter of the alphabet is pronounced as "zee" and not as "zed"
I hope my comment helps the OP who is based in the U.K. The OP might have found it easypeasy to work out what ezpz was compared to me



pentaxuser

 

[sterioma]

No, I still have not idea what that test is ☹

 

[sterioma]

But I am considering trying this: https://www.halfhill.com/speed1.html
Even though I will have to adapt it to 12 frames per roll as opposed to 37.

 

[removed account4]

No, I still have not idea what that test is ☹

really ?
its just 1 shot over exposed 1 shot under exposed develop normally
then the same thing develop for 1/3 less time and
then the same thing develop for 1/3 more time ..
its about the most least effort test there is ..
you don't even need to the developing part if you like what
the film looks like . ...

But I am considering trying this: https://www.halfhill.com/speed1.html
Even though I will have to adapt it to 12 frames per roll as opposed to 37.

sorry to say this but that is an waste of time .. at least the test i gave you
36 frames of negatives of something and not some zone system wannabe test

good luck with whatever you end up doing !

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Do what jnanian said. It's the easiest, and quickest way to get you on the right path of acceptable exposure and development. Use the min time max black to evaluate.

 

[pentaxuser]

jnanian, the test certainly sounds ezpz. The kids used to say easypeasy, lemon squeezy. Sometimes the best solution is the easiest. Like using a pencil instead of a pen in zero gravity

pentaxuser